On 09/11/2003 17:46, WAYNE_B_YOUNG{at}HOTMAIL.COM wrote to PHOTO:

Hello Wayne

I missed this reading on Docs pure FIDO, sorry I've been down with the flu.

-> Yes, I actually meant to say How many photos PER SECOND at 5- to 
-> 7-megapixels per photo?

Oh I understand now, like 3 CCD's means larger pixel sizes for the video..
Not the way it works, three CCD's are used for color purity, if you record red 
on one CCD then when moving the camera the retention of red isn't as apt to 
wipe out the next color being written to that space.  I'm no physicist, but 
have used both camcorders, the single CDC is more contrasty and in many 
instances appears to be sharper that the 3 CCD camcorders, however color 
purity and unwanted artifacts are much better with a the multiple ccd 
camcorders.  Especially if you have a movement taking place where shadow 
become bright light, like a person walking in front of a window.

Your still only taking 29.7 pictures per second.  HD is actually 1080 wide and 
600 high, so that means about a doubling of the data rate stream when compared 
to current Digital Video's 720 x 480 size.

-> Most digital cameras have to scale down the number of pixels when they have 
-> to take multiple photos.

The time used to write the pictures to the memory card is the slowdown factor. 
The CCD's will function much faster than most realize.  The same camera above 
will record the picture at 1080i (interlaced) where the recording takes place 
actually at 1080 x 300 lines for the standard TV interlaced format, and 1080p 
(progressive) where the all 600 lines are recorded at once in one frame.  This 
is supposedly sharper if you want to capture stills off the video.  I have 
this feature on my present camera, and in instances where there is movement, 
it does appear sharper, however one of the things that makes TV tv and not 
film is the movement that occurs within a single frame.  

Film is shot a 24 FPS and TV at 60i.  Interlaced means it takes two pictures 
to create one full TV frame at the same as 30 FPS.  (thats for NTSF in the 
states and Japan, in Europe PAL systems shoot at 50i and halves to 25 FPS)
Because movement is divided among two frames they will never register properly 
should you want to make a single picture of a Samurai Warrior swinging his 
sword from your video in interlaced mode.  In progressive you can, movement 
blur will be determined by the shutter speed you have your camcorder set on.

Trouble with shooting things in progressive all the time is that only one 
frame is recorded.  Remember TV is a system that shows sixty frames per second 
on screen, so the second frame of each two frame set is a duplicate of the 
first frame, which gives your smooth video of trees swaying in the breeze for 
instance a choppiness that appears unnatural.

-> (This is a good point to remember for those who are hesitant to speak up 
-> because they don't have digital camera yet - this is where the film cameras 
-> with motor drives excel!)

Wish I had bookmarked it, but there was an excellent film and digital 
comparison done by one of the biggies, and film is still ahead of digital in 
many respects, but the distance has narrowed greatly in the past two years.

-> Yes, again, a good choice. But the better one is the Sony TRV-30 that takes 
-> both.

And at $2000 cheaper a real bargain.  If you run out to see Star Wars II, 
attack of the clones, in wide screen, your seeing the first movie ever made 
without using any film.  The entire movie was shot on 1920 x 1080 resolution 
using a specially modified camcorder. Lucasfilm used a modified Sony HDW-F900 
($102,360 list)˙arguably the finest digital camera ever made. Panavision's 
lenses and mounting modifications to this camera add at least $30,000 to its 
list price.  Now of course theres no memory card where you could click a 
still, so it might not interest ya Wayne. 

-> The one I memtioned earlier with 20- to 200mm f2 zoom Carl Zeiss T lens 
-> takes only stills.
-> Sony sent me the preliminary notice because I use their laptop and DV 
-> camcorder, but not too many details, though the price is about 1500. A good 
-> price compared to Canon and even Nikon prices.

Panasonic is top dog in the prosumer market today.  On stills if Sony would 
finally give up on their Memory Stick leanings like they finally did on Beta, 
they would broaden their market.  Without doing that, they are stuck with 
being in the Christmas present category bought by people who haven't done a 
little research and are buying a name to give to someone.

-> >  in two years is how I see it.
-> 
-> Aaah, yes, nothing lasts forever... do what Larry did - trade up your 
-> equipments.

I have nothing I want to let go.  Everything I have I'm happy with, for now, 
as it still does all I could do with something new, just takes a little more 
effort.

-> Yes, that's the beauty of millitary service - on your safe return home you 
-> earned an iron plate that's unbreakable and always full of good food!  :)

Don't know where that comes from, I did my tour many years ago.  Admit they 
still pay me 201 dollars a month for screwing me up in the fifties, but thats 
not enough to fill many plates each month. My full plate comes from 40 years 
working for the phone company and saving my pennies for retirement years.

-> So good in fact that young people are lining up to enlist, even as the 
-> mothers are marching in Washington wanting their sons and daughters 
returned 
-> from Iraq...
-> 
-> Aaah, the whole world is evolving...

Yes and this is a subject I would gladly discuss with you, but this isn't 
the place, as I like Bob Dial, I don't want him jumping my case.  Email me.

 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5